Why not get a replacement player in that situation of a player
dropping out? As long as I have time to get a player I can usually
do so.
Clint
--- harlequingamescardiff <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
wrote:
Why not get a replacement player in that situation
of a player
dropping out?
We're not saying that there is a problem getting a
replacement player AFTER someone has dropped out.
We're saying the problem is that the person dropped in
te first place.
Few players say, "Oh goody, a teammate dropped and now
I get to play two positions in this game". It is more
like, "Crap, another stinking drop. Looks like I have
to play 2 positions again if I don't want to lose."
Drops that are picked up by others in the game may not
be a problem from a mod point-of-view. They sucky
donkey butt from a player PoV.
These should be punished, not rewarded as the current
system does. If you drop, and someone picks up the
position, and your team goes on to lose, you're not
credited with the loss. This will encourage people to
drop at the first sign of trouble.
Even the few that want to give PRS a go seem to have
serious concerns with how it could encourage players
to dump a losing position on someone else.
As long as I have time to get a
player I can usually
do so.
Proving that players concerned about their PRS will be
able to "get out of" the loss.
Clint
Even if you go through with the sucky GSI VP system
counting, I REALLY think you need to address the
policy of not counting a loss to a person that drops
if the position is picked up.
My suggestion would be that if the game ends within 5
turns of the drop, you take full blame for the loss.
5-10 turns, and the two players share the drop in PRS.
Beyond 10 turns, and the player that picked it up
gets full blame for a loss.
Anytime there is a win, whomever picked up the
position should get full credit for the win.
Darrell Shimel
···
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
> Why not get a replacement player in that situation
> of a player > dropping out?We're not saying that there is a problem getting a
replacement player AFTER someone has dropped out.
We're saying the problem is that the person dropped in
the first place.
I don't generally get a problem filling nations when a player drops. In this specific instance this was not the only factor in the demise of game 233. Games end it's the nature of playing Middle Earth... 
Clint
>We're not saying that there is a problem getting a
>replacement player AFTER someone has dropped out.
>We're saying the problem is that the person dropped
in
>the first place.I don't generally get a problem filling nations when
a player drops. In
this specific instance this was not the only factor
in the demise of game
233. Games end it's the nature of playing Middle
Earth...Clint
Demise of the game??? I just got results today for
GT5. And, you've deleted the entire point of the post
I made.
From a Game Moderator prospective, turning over a
position to a teammate may not seem to be a problem.
As a player that has picked up positions from
teammates that were dropping, and then had to run 2
nations when I only wanted to run 1, I think this is a
HUGE problem.
Dropping IS a huge problem for the players. You can
keep on saying that you don't have a problem filling
positions, but we'll know the problem still exists.
233 was used as an example, because the Woodmen droped
early (like GT2) and the position was picked up by the
Noldor player. I'm sure the Noldor wasn't ecstatic
about licking up a second position.
In 101, I had to pick up two positions dropped by
"teammates". I didn't want to, but it was better than
losing because the positions got filled by a poor
player, a player that wanted to drop in for a couple
turns, or a player that just jumped in until the game
they really wanted to play finnaly got 25 positions
filled.
Darrell Shimel
···
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
As a player that has picked up positions from teammates that were dropping, and then had to run 2
nations when I only wanted to run 1, I think this is a HUGE problem.
Personally as a player I prefer to run 2 nations than one - but that's due to the impact I can assert then. You're at the mercy of 9 others normally...
Dropping IS a huge problem for the players. You can keep on saying that you don't have a problem filling
positions, but we'll know the problem still exists.
Um - not sure what else I can say. With DGE it was with us it's not. The IMPACT it has is something else - is our policy a good one or a bad one is the actual question I think you are asking here and I'll answer that below.
233 was used as an example, because the Woodmen droped
early (like GT2) and the position was picked up by the
Noldor player. I'm sure the Noldor wasn't ecstatic
about licking up a second position.
Maybe he'd like to comment? I generally don't like to talk for others. I vaguely recall having a couple of players ask to pick it up within very short call. Also in most games I get around 3 or 4 players commit in this manner within a couple of hours of the email to the team going out.
In 101, I had to pick up two positions dropped by "teammates". I didn't want to, but it was better than
losing because the positions got filled by a poor player,
How can you rate them a poor player? Seems a bit harsh. How did you pick up 2 nations, did one die? We do limit it to one additional nation per player.
a player that wanted to drop in for a couple turns,
We don't see that very often at all. Part of the reason I dropped the take-up free turns to 1 was very much for this reason. With DGE players used to run a nation for a couple of turns and then dump it. Not so anymore. I could get the statistics for this but I haven't compiled them of take-ups versus the numbers of turns they run but it's very much in favour of sticking with the game. So I'd have to dispute your take on this here.
or a player that just jumped in until the game they really wanted to play finnaly got 25 positions filled.
That's also rare. Generally (and that means 90% plus) players stick it out if they take up a nation - when you're part of the team you stick with the team I find.
Generally, as mentioned before, my policy is that make the best game I can and let that attract the players. I think that it's better to have a full game, as per the designers concept of the game, and use that as the basis for making a good game. Having nations not played due to a rule saying you can't play it seems artificial and spoiling the enjoyment of the game. (I've had players comment, before we changed the rule from Allsorts ruling, that they were keen to pick up the dropped nation but weren't allowed to and the game then died horribly. So we changed that rule and I am pretty sure the game has benefited.)
In advance, did we do it for the money? Primarily no - make the best game we can and let that earn us the money or be the most fun for players to play. Fun and best game does equate to money though but it's not the bottom line.
When we took over DGE we chatted to Stu a lot about what he saw as problems with the game and what we saw as potential improvements. We combined the best of those as best we could. He mentioned that drop outs were a BIG problem and this does deal with that problem a lot. It's not perfect, occasionally players do pick up an additional financial burden that otherwise they would not have to, but then they usually don't pick up a nation in a new game. The knock on effect of that is committed players to games in general I have found.
Clint
>Dropping IS a huge problem for the players. You
can keep on saying that
>you don't have a problem filling
>positions, but we'll know the problem still exists.Um - not sure what else I can say.
Letting teammates pick up dropped positions is
certainly a HUGE improvement to how GSI and DGE ran
things. Thank you for that.
Having to take on the financial burden of running a
position you did not intend to is MUCH better than
seeing a position go out or it being picked up by
someone that doesn't know what has been going on.
But, if we're going to get a Player Rating System, I
think the Player Rating System should have a mechanism
that punishes drop outs. It should not have a
mechanism that encourages people to drop at the first
signs you may end up losing the game in hopes someone
else will pick it up and take the loss for you.
As for how I picked up two positions in 101, Cardolan
and Dwarves dropped. I originally picked up Cardolan
and Harad picked up Dwarves. I was having trouble
focusing on North and South, so traded Corsairs for
Dwarves. I started as Corsairs, ended as Dwardolan.
Was one of my nations eliminated??? I've never had a
position eliminated.
I've also never lost. I did transfer away some games
back in the DGE days when my ex and I split up. I
really don't know for sure if those games ended in win
or loss for my side. I seem to recall hearing that
one was a win and one was a loss. However, other than
those games, I've never lost.
I'm sure I just jinxed myself. Probably lose all
three I'm in right now.
And do I think I should have been ranked as a poor
player for transferring away three games. Yep... At
that time, I had no choice. It sucked for the poeple
that had to pick them up, and I should have been
dinged for that.
Darrell Shimel
···
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools